8 ms·

Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many differe

Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons * The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay for all its entitlements * This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there * Ergo we are looking at another American century, or perhaps some kind of isolationist/Cold War-esque type of century since American political influence will decline, but China and Russia's colossal demographic problems will hinder them from making any serious bids for dominance Objectively - it looks like another American century, but one where the whole world is diminished due to global collapse in the birth rate, and some nations are just less diminished than others (unless I am severely underestimating the impact of automation and AI) And yes, many people will be unhappy, and there will be more war, and globalization has peaked

SecretDreams 2y ago
This is an interesting, if not unhinged, take. But at least it's written well.
MattGaiser 2y ago
> it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world Except the rest of the world doesn't need to go it alone.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hiddencost 2y ago
Buddy. They gutted the NIH&NSF and delayed the flu vaccine decision. This is not going to work out for you.
yo_yo_yo-yo 2y ago
This analysis, if it can be called as such, misses the fact that the US is very, very politically divided, to the point where I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. That perspective has been allowed to become reasonable, which is very, dangerous.
- foogazi 2y ago
  > I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. You think we’ll still have elections?
  - yo_yo_yo-yo 2y ago
    > You think we’ll still have elections If you throw away democracy do you still have a USA to speak of? I think the answer to that is no, though perhaps I am mistaken that every US patriot has fealty to the constitution.
    - appointment 2y ago
      "US patriots" have fealty to an imagined version of the constitution that lets the Republicans do whatever they want. There is no reason to think this will change if the Republicans get even more fascist.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
icegreentea2 2y ago
The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit. An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit. The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.
  - icegreentea2 2y ago
    Yeah, that's the problem eh? Both for the OP's projection, but also identifies the element that most centrist/technocratic political parties are missing. You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them. You need to address the wealth inequality. And yes, I think you -are- allowed some degree of "clawback", especially if it helps address the other two issues. I think America specifically is allowed some degree of "clawback" (for example, a reduction or drawdown of military support to Europe). For a country to be just to its own citizens, it does need to respect the citizen body's wishes about immigration (though it can also choose to attempt to shape those views to some degree). And it does need to address wealth inequality. And it -should- prioritize the welfare of its own citizen to those of its allies and trading partners (at least at a 1:1 basis).
    - shigawire 2y ago
ants_everywhere 2y ago
Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported sympathies with Putin's administration and interests. Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies. This is part of China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  Any sources for all this? Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision. The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.
  - LPisGood 2y ago
    > Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before. Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it. What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.
    - arandomusername 2y ago
      > Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line. > ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment But that's not the only thing getting sent. > we would be abandoning an ally What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.
csomar 2y ago
While I agree with what you are saying, the outcome is not quite as obvious/guaranteed. The US is clawing back and democrat/republic/kamala wouldn't change that reality, but the world is also not going to sit quiet. The outcome will depend on Europe, China and the rest of the un-aligned.
zmgsabst 2y ago
Multipolar world order: Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale. ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there). We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded). Exciting times!
- safety1st 2y ago
  A multipolar world order is a pretty good counter-take (parallel take?)! Most of the time I have my eye on Asia and it seems like a stretch for Korea, Japan, Philippines etc. to fall under the sway of a China in severe demographic decline - but much of SE Asia is definitely in play. And every region will play out differently
- nthingtohide 2y ago
  This is how I view the system in place for past few decades : I consider US to be like brain of earth / humanity. Dollar Reserve Currency is like nerve signals. It can give that printed money to an African nation and make it buy wheat from Ukraine. Or give that money to Myanmar so that it can buy weapons from other countries. The whole setup is brilliant. Making one hand cooperate with another or hurt another if we extend the brain body analogy. US is holding a structural proverbial gun to other nations' head. It is only a matter of time, when the body of humanity revolts against the excesses of brain's unrealistic demands.
tokioyoyo 2y ago
US only has 350M population.
- foogazi 2y ago
  Plenty of room to grow
  - tokioyoyo 2y ago
    Through immigration, which almost every developed country is trying as well?
    - foogazi 2y ago
      Yes! But who is better at it than the USA ?
      - tokioyoyo 2y ago
        Things change very fast when things cannot be fixed in any other way. I think you underestimate how quickly things reverse one way or another. Look at Japan's foreign residents number YoY, a nation that have actively hated (hates?) foreigners, but understands how we're going to be depended on them for the next decade due to low birth rates. When every nation fights against each other to prop up their population numbers, immigrants will choose the place that's the best for them. Think of it as product competition, and consumers are the immigrants that pick what's best for them.
        foogazi 2y ago
        > immigrants will choose the place that's the best for them. Immigrants have always done this, that’s why they emigrate in the first place
branko_d 2y ago
This assumes USA was taken advantage of by globalization, which is not actually the case - USA benefitted disproportionally from it. USA's GDP growth is substantially based on the consumers (~70% compared to ~50% in the EU and other comparable countries), and that wouldn't have been possible if they could only consume what was produced in the USA. But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc... Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  Globalization for the US was trading industrialization for financialization. Yay for the paper GDP gains, but most citizens got left behind - though they can by cheap imported cloths with their shrinking paychecks. Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.
  - branko_d 2y ago
    > Can't build chips True, but that's true for every country, even Taiwan. If ASML (Dutch company), Applied Materials, LAM Research, KLA, Synopsys, Cadence (US companies), Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etcu (Japan) and literally hundreds of other companies didn't cooperate, TSMC couldn't function either. BTW, that's why China can never "take over" TSMC - they can just make it defunct when all these other companies stop doing business with it after the invasion. Basically, the planet is making chips, not any individual country. > can't make ships, I suggest you look-up the Jones Act and its unintended consequences. And then think why American voters never consider this kind of stuff when voting. > can't make furniture, can't make clothes, Fair enough, though this is more a matter of what is economically viable vs. what is possible. There are economic losers, sure. But there are big winners too, most notably in the "tech" industry. It's incumbent on the US to smooth-out the transition for their own citizens, instead of allowing special interests and monopolies to run amok and incumbents to Gerrymander themselves into office. Ultimately, American voters allowed this to happen, and when they saw the results, they fell for a demagogue. > can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. I hope you are not suggesting Russo-Ukrainian war is "not real". This is almost WW2-level stuff. I suggest you take a look at the photographic evidence of vehicle losses, keeping in mind that the actual losses are likely higher: Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 3786, total: 20577) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 1092, total: 7965) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works. > The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world. > This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone. But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.
- safety1st 2y ago
  Might have been worth reading if you hadn't kicked it off with an ad hominem. Bye!
  - LPisGood 2y ago
    It’s still worth reading if you can look past it. The comment refutes your comment totally and in good detail.
- 2y ago
foogazi 2y ago
Interesting that it matches what I see as the flip from rights-based to might makes right world If you have the nukes why suffer weaker countries? If you depend on Canada for oil why even have a Canada ? If you have to pay to defend Taiwan for their chips bring the chips over, leave Taiwan outside Why should Panama have a say in global trade ?
827a 2y ago
I tend to agree, with the exception of: I don't agree with the assertion that the US is broadly intending to renege on many of its security guarantees. I don't think that's a fair characterization on the Ukraine situation. If we had a security guarantee with Ukraine, it was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and we reneged on that under Obama in 2014 with Crimea, and under Biden in 2022 with the current war, but even Russia was a signatory to that and frankly its security guarantees were pretty weak anyway. Some say the economic, humanitarian, and military aid we've provided technically counts; its not like NATO Article 5 after all. The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority. This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too. But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too. You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.
protocolture 2y ago
Allies are good for America. Trade is good for America. Isolation has never been good for anyone. >The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general. >This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos. >Ergo we are looking at another American century A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation. Let me make a prediction here. 1. The US is going to get more isolationist 2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world. "If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs. 3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it. I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
- 827a 2y ago
  Its easy to think in extremes, but the reality will be far more moderate than your characterization. Remember: US policies have a way of flip-flopping every two years as new Presidents and Senators take office, and its very likely that unless Trump can score some massive wins in 2025, Democrats will retake Congressional majority in 2026; the base is incited, if these comments are anything to look at. But, the direction won't change: More isolationist, greater investment in homeland manufacturing and less global force projection, but still a significant and growing international trade presence, and a signatory to global security guarantees. Here's how I put it: America bared the brunt three MAJOR, timeline-altering events in the past 25 years: 9/11, the global financial crisis, and COVID (I am not saying the rest of the world did not bare some of these, just that the US did). To think we'd just roll with the punches and there'd be no consequences of these is, frankly, ridiculous: 9/11 led to multiple forever wars that cost America an extreme amount of money and lives for almost no gain, not really even victory. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to project force globally. The GFC led to massive debt spending and an ongoing financial crisis that America still hasn't fully recovered from. Just when we were ramping up to start recovery, COVID hits and we do it all over again. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to give away free stuff or take the raw end of trade deals.
dukeyukey 2y ago
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world If anything it's the other way around - the world has granted America incredible economic concessions. America has decided it doesn't want them.

SecretDreams 2y ago

This is an interesting, if not unhinged, take. But at least it's written well.

MattGaiser 2y ago

> it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world Except the rest of the world doesn't need to go it alone.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hiddencost 2y ago

Buddy. They gutted the NIH&NSF and delayed the flu vaccine decision. This is not going to work out for you.

yo_yo_yo-yo 2y ago

This analysis, if it can be called as such, misses the fact that the US is very, very politically divided, to the point where I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. That perspective has been allowed to become reasonable, which is very, dangerous.

foogazi 2y ago
> I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. You think we’ll still have elections?
- yo_yo_yo-yo 2y ago
  > You think we’ll still have elections If you throw away democracy do you still have a USA to speak of? I think the answer to that is no, though perhaps I am mistaken that every US patriot has fealty to the constitution.
  - appointment 2y ago
    "US patriots" have fealty to an imagined version of the constitution that lets the Republicans do whatever they want. There is no reason to think this will change if the Republicans get even more fascist.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

icegreentea2 2y ago

The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit. An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit. The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.
- icegreentea2 2y ago
  Yeah, that's the problem eh? Both for the OP's projection, but also identifies the element that most centrist/technocratic political parties are missing. You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them. You need to address the wealth inequality. And yes, I think you -are- allowed some degree of "clawback", especially if it helps address the other two issues. I think America specifically is allowed some degree of "clawback" (for example, a reduction or drawdown of military support to Europe). For a country to be just to its own citizens, it does need to respect the citizen body's wishes about immigration (though it can also choose to attempt to shape those views to some degree). And it does need to address wealth inequality. And it -should- prioritize the welfare of its own citizen to those of its allies and trading partners (at least at a 1:1 basis).
  - shigawire 2y ago

ants_everywhere 2y ago

Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported sympathies with Putin's administration and interests. Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies. This is part of China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.

riehwvfbk 2y ago
Any sources for all this? Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision. The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.
- LPisGood 2y ago
  > Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before. Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it. What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    > Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line. > ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment But that's not the only thing getting sent. > we would be abandoning an ally What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.

csomar 2y ago

While I agree with what you are saying, the outcome is not quite as obvious/guaranteed. The US is clawing back and democrat/republic/kamala wouldn't change that reality, but the world is also not going to sit quiet. The outcome will depend on Europe, China and the rest of the un-aligned.

zmgsabst 2y ago

Multipolar world order: Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale. ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there). We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded). Exciting times!

safety1st 2y ago
A multipolar world order is a pretty good counter-take (parallel take?)! Most of the time I have my eye on Asia and it seems like a stretch for Korea, Japan, Philippines etc. to fall under the sway of a China in severe demographic decline - but much of SE Asia is definitely in play. And every region will play out differently
nthingtohide 2y ago
This is how I view the system in place for past few decades : I consider US to be like brain of earth / humanity. Dollar Reserve Currency is like nerve signals. It can give that printed money to an African nation and make it buy wheat from Ukraine. Or give that money to Myanmar so that it can buy weapons from other countries. The whole setup is brilliant. Making one hand cooperate with another or hurt another if we extend the brain body analogy. US is holding a structural proverbial gun to other nations' head. It is only a matter of time, when the body of humanity revolts against the excesses of brain's unrealistic demands.

tokioyoyo 2y ago

US only has 350M population.

foogazi 2y ago
Plenty of room to grow
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  Through immigration, which almost every developed country is trying as well?
  - foogazi 2y ago
    Yes! But who is better at it than the USA ?
    - tokioyoyo 2y ago
      Things change very fast when things cannot be fixed in any other way. I think you underestimate how quickly things reverse one way or another. Look at Japan's foreign residents number YoY, a nation that have actively hated (hates?) foreigners, but understands how we're going to be depended on them for the next decade due to low birth rates. When every nation fights against each other to prop up their population numbers, immigrants will choose the place that's the best for them. Think of it as product competition, and consumers are the immigrants that pick what's best for them.
      - foogazi 2y ago
        > immigrants will choose the place that's the best for them. Immigrants have always done this, that’s why they emigrate in the first place

branko_d 2y ago

This assumes USA was taken advantage of by globalization, which is not actually the case - USA benefitted disproportionally from it. USA's GDP growth is substantially based on the consumers (~70% compared to ~50% in the EU and other comparable countries), and that wouldn't have been possible if they could only consume what was produced in the USA. But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc... Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.

WillPostForFood 2y ago
Globalization for the US was trading industrialization for financialization. Yay for the paper GDP gains, but most citizens got left behind - though they can by cheap imported cloths with their shrinking paychecks. Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.
- branko_d 2y ago
  > Can't build chips True, but that's true for every country, even Taiwan. If ASML (Dutch company), Applied Materials, LAM Research, KLA, Synopsys, Cadence (US companies), Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etcu (Japan) and literally hundreds of other companies didn't cooperate, TSMC couldn't function either. BTW, that's why China can never "take over" TSMC - they can just make it defunct when all these other companies stop doing business with it after the invasion. Basically, the planet is making chips, not any individual country. > can't make ships, I suggest you look-up the Jones Act and its unintended consequences. And then think why American voters never consider this kind of stuff when voting. > can't make furniture, can't make clothes, Fair enough, though this is more a matter of what is economically viable vs. what is possible. There are economic losers, sure. But there are big winners too, most notably in the "tech" industry. It's incumbent on the US to smooth-out the transition for their own citizens, instead of allowing special interests and monopolies to run amok and incumbents to Gerrymander themselves into office. Ultimately, American voters allowed this to happen, and when they saw the results, they fell for a demagogue. > can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. I hope you are not suggesting Russo-Ukrainian war is "not real". This is almost WW2-level stuff. I suggest you take a look at the photographic evidence of vehicle losses, keeping in mind that the actual losses are likely higher: Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 3786, total: 20577) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 1092, total: 7965) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works. > The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world. > This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone. But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.

safety1st 2y ago
Might have been worth reading if you hadn't kicked it off with an ad hominem. Bye!
- LPisGood 2y ago
  It’s still worth reading if you can look past it. The comment refutes your comment totally and in good detail.
2y ago

foogazi 2y ago

Interesting that it matches what I see as the flip from rights-based to might makes right world If you have the nukes why suffer weaker countries? If you depend on Canada for oil why even have a Canada ? If you have to pay to defend Taiwan for their chips bring the chips over, leave Taiwan outside Why should Panama have a say in global trade ?

827a 2y ago

I tend to agree, with the exception of: I don't agree with the assertion that the US is broadly intending to renege on many of its security guarantees. I don't think that's a fair characterization on the Ukraine situation. If we had a security guarantee with Ukraine, it was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and we reneged on that under Obama in 2014 with Crimea, and under Biden in 2022 with the current war, but even Russia was a signatory to that and frankly its security guarantees were pretty weak anyway. Some say the economic, humanitarian, and military aid we've provided technically counts; its not like NATO Article 5 after all. The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority. This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too. But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too. You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.

protocolture 2y ago

Allies are good for America. Trade is good for America. Isolation has never been good for anyone. >The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general. >This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos. >Ergo we are looking at another American century A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation. Let me make a prediction here. 1. The US is going to get more isolationist 2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world. "If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs. 3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it. I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.

827a 2y ago
Its easy to think in extremes, but the reality will be far more moderate than your characterization. Remember: US policies have a way of flip-flopping every two years as new Presidents and Senators take office, and its very likely that unless Trump can score some massive wins in 2025, Democrats will retake Congressional majority in 2026; the base is incited, if these comments are anything to look at. But, the direction won't change: More isolationist, greater investment in homeland manufacturing and less global force projection, but still a significant and growing international trade presence, and a signatory to global security guarantees. Here's how I put it: America bared the brunt three MAJOR, timeline-altering events in the past 25 years: 9/11, the global financial crisis, and COVID (I am not saying the rest of the world did not bare some of these, just that the US did). To think we'd just roll with the punches and there'd be no consequences of these is, frankly, ridiculous: 9/11 led to multiple forever wars that cost America an extreme amount of money and lives for almost no gain, not really even victory. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to project force globally. The GFC led to massive debt spending and an ongoing financial crisis that America still hasn't fully recovered from. Just when we were ramping up to start recovery, COVID hits and we do it all over again. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to give away free stuff or take the raw end of trade deals.

dukeyukey 2y ago

> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world If anything it's the other way around - the world has granted America incredible economic concessions. America has decided it doesn't want them.